Log in

View Full Version : Post-Capitalism, No Socialism



Desperado
11th September 2011, 21:27
This is really two separate ideas I've been entertaining for a while.

I don't adhere to capitalism necessarily being the last-stage before communism and it's economic liberation of humankind, as much as I agree with the historical aspect of Marx's conception of history and radical class analysis generally. Predicting capitalism under early feudalism would be near impossible. Under late feudalism, sure - that you begin to see those capitalistic elements emerging in society, and so maybe it could be argued that our ideas of communism are due to our late stage of capitalism. But Marx was hardly writing during the decay of capitalism, and the working class seems far less radical than it was. On the other hand, perhaps our ideas of communism are yet fully developed (the actual management of a communist society is still vague at best, unimaginable at worst). But I do not see communism as solely possible due to capitalism - it could have emerged under a feudal or slave society, and in isolated cases did - there was definitely far more of a communal basis in those less alienated societies.

Before the infant bourgeoisie and then proletariat began to emerge from feudalism, it's hard to distinguish the situation than if we were musing this as revolutionary peasants in a feudal society (where they would have been society's lowest class and thus those potential of full social revolution - something that Marx himself in a letter to a Russian saw as possible). And although capitalism has radically increased the potentials of our labour through technological advancement, I do not see this as a required prerequisite for a communal society - indeed, thus far it has simply alienated us further.

It seems plausible to me that capitalism may well develop into some new class society, where the proletariat and bourgeoisie watch some new classes emerge in society as the peasants and their masters did. Or indeed the road might end here, with capitalism destroying not just itself but much of civilisation (through ecological collapse), taking us back for the most part to square one (Einstein saying the fourth world war will be fought with sticks and stones).

This points me to the second, more whimsical and far less scrutinised idea which I saw as a basis for a sci-fi novel perhaps. What fears me the most is that, in an almost sickening way, class society is resolved - but not in the way we would see it. Capitalism, though depending entirely on the proletariat, has made them more and more useless - turning to machines to attempt to replace labour, this precipitating a crisis in itself (the falling rate of profit etc.). Of course, mass unemployment has been avoided through creating new needs - the continuous overproduction of capitalism coupled with stuff we don't truly require (consumer society, mass advertising). But this route is unsustainable (for all) with depleting resources and capitalist mismanagement*.

What if a section of the (more long-sighted and powerful) bourgeoisie was to abandon the proletariat. With the exponential technological advancements we are making, a life of luxury may be lived easily (for the few) without any need of much labour (other than pushing buttons and some tech expertise). The tide (metaphorically and literally) rising and resources disappearing, some of the elite (with their firepower) where to leave the proletariat as a mass of lumpen to live isolated. This new development would be enacted by some escaping bourgeoisie, not a class conscious proletariat able to enact their own communal social revolution. They are besides facing an economy of scarcity thanks to a now un-reversible ecological disaster brought upon them (rather than Marx's vision of a technologically advanced society for us them to take into our own hands), and would most definitely be in the savage shit. Not just a society split into two, but two entirely separate societies, one in Noah's ark and the other drowning in the flood.


*I am neither a primitivist nor a Malthusian - I believe a socialist society employing the sensible use of the technology and their own minds would be able to avoid such a crisis, but clearly under the current situation we are steering for disaster.

Vladimir Innit Lenin
12th September 2011, 00:14
How could the working class become Lumpen-ised? Surely, if inequality widened, robotisation became widespread and the working class was left on the scrap heap, the working class would - as history has shown - revolt, not become a bunch of un-revolutionary criminals.

Lenina Rosenweg
12th September 2011, 00:40
If the bourgeois separates itself from the working class they will no longer be bourgeois.Possibly, even probably some section of the ruling class could try to survive in walled off enclaves but, even in the most high tech society there will be a need for someone to do the planning, someone to push buttons, someone to produce food.. Possibly for a time someone could maintain some sort of high tech "eco-village" but ultimately its just not possible to escape capitalism, its only possible to transcend it.The only way to do this is global revolution.

I've thought about a future Mad Max scenario.

Rafiq
12th September 2011, 00:40
The working class is undoubtedly the most progressive force currently. They, like the Merchant class before them, will be the champions of a new mode of production.

If society organizes itself into a system more efficient than socialism, I see no problem, and would support it. But that is where the debate is, whether a society more efficient than Socialism is possible.

Desperado
12th September 2011, 21:15
How could the working class become Lumpen-ised? Surely, if inequality widened, robotisation became widespread and the working class was left on the scrap heap, the working class would - as history has shown - revolt, not become a bunch of un-revolutionary criminals.

Indeed, but you can't revolt against a ruling class that has left. Doubtless, sections of the working class would get organised and revolt, during the same time as this new class abandons them (of course there'd still be plenty of bourgie's around). The one might even effect the other. But an economy of scarcity (literally scarcity, not simply miss-management of abundance) would be hard to see a socialist society emerge under.


If the bourgeois separates itself from the working class they will no longer be bourgeois.

Naturally.


Possibly, even probably some section of the ruling class could try to survive in walled off enclaves but, even in the most high tech society there will be a need for someone to do the planning, someone to push buttons, someone to produce food..Well perhaps it would be a minority socialist society (seeing as the new class who just push buttons own their means of production), or some new class structure.


Possibly for a time someone could maintain some sort of high tech "eco-village" but ultimately its just not possible to escape capitalism, its only possible to transcend it.There would be no capitalism to escape, it's structurally unsustainable because the profit motive has destroyed the natural resources it relies on. In this sense it would be a transcending I suppose.


The working class is undoubtedly the most progressive force currently. They, like the Merchant class before them, will be the champions of a new mode of production.

Progressive in which sense? As in they are most likely to change the world, or change the world for good? I hold that the peasant class could have changed the world in a way better than the merchant class did - bringing about socialism.


If society organizes itself into a system more efficient than socialism, I see no problem, and would support it.Truly? I'm after a fairer society, not efficiency per se (although I do believe the two go hand in hand in socialism's case). My scenario above though is the formation of an altogether separate society.

ZeroNowhere
12th September 2011, 21:52
Capitalism, though depending entirely on the proletariat, has made them more and more useless - turning to machines to attempt to replace labour, this precipitating a crisis in itself (the falling rate of profit etc.). Of course, mass unemployment has been avoided through creating new needs - the continuous overproduction of capitalism coupled with stuff we don't truly require (consumer society, mass advertising).Wait, what? I'm not sure how that makes any sense.

Desperado
12th September 2011, 23:14
Wait, what? I'm not sure how that makes any sense.

Which bit?